Gary Glitter to be charged with eight sexual offences

Former pop star Gary Glitter is to be charged with eight sexual offences involving underage girls, London's Crown Prosecution Service has announced.

Glitter (70) whose real name is Paul Gadd, became the first person to be arrested as part of Operation Yewtree, the national investigation launched in the wake of abuse claims against Jimmy Savile, when he was held at his home in central London in October 2012. He was later released on police bail, which was extended in March this year.

Glitter Glitter is accused of four counts of indecent assault involving the first complainant, who was aged 12 or 13 at the time, between January 31st and Ma 31sty 1977.

He is also accused of one count of “administering a drug or other thing in order to facilitate sexual intercourse” and one count of sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 between the same dates.

He is also charged with two counts of indecent assault between October 1st 1979 and December 31st 1980 involving the second complainant, who was aged 13 or 14 at the time.

Announcing the decision to charge him Baljit Ubhey, chief crown prosecutor f said: “We have carefully considered the evidence gathered by the Metropolitan Police Service in relation to Paul Gadd, also known as Garry Glitter.

“He was arrested on October 28th 2012 over allegations of sexual offences and the police have been providing material to the CPS since July 2013, with the most recent material submitted in March 2014.

“Having completed our review, we have concluded, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Gadd to be charged with eight offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. These relate to two female complainants aged between 12 and 14 at the time of the alleged offending between 1977 and 1980.

“Mr Gadd will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on June 19th 2014.

“We have also decided that no further action should be taken in relation to five allegations made by two further complainants as we determined there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.”

PA